David Barlow, SCRP, GMS
Senior Vice President, Client Support Services
SIRVA Relocation

David B. Barlow, SCRP, GMS, is the senior vice president of Client Support services for SIRVA Relocation and SIRVA’s senior consultant. In 2000 David joined SIRVA Inc., the world’s largest relocation management and moving services company, after retiring with over 33 years of human resources assignments, including global relocation, with Chevron Corp. in San Francisco. David has held many key HR positions including compensation, benefits design, and job evaluation, and has led numerous HR staffs. David has completed a three-year term on the Board of Directors of ERC and seven years on ERC’s Public Policy Committee.

David is a Senior Certified Relocation Professional (SCRP) and holds the Global Mobility Specialist title. David also holds a bachelor’s degree in economics and an MBA from the University of Utah.



Historically, relocation program managers have required transferees to submit receipts for most relocation expenses. This requires the transferee to gather, account for and then submit receipts. Someone then has to review and then approve/deny the numerous relocation expenses incurred during the relocation process. Because this is a very labor intensive process (i.e. reviewing receipts), the practice of providing transferees with a set lump sum for certain corporate relocation expenses has grown in popularity. Lump sums first began with the introduction of the Miscellaneous Expense Allowance (MEA), which set forth the idea of providing one lump sum amount to cover small miscellaneous expenses. The use of lump sums was then expanded to pay for food expenses (per diems), based on a fixed daily amount, and then lump sums were set for specific relocation features—such as the home finding trip. In this example, the home finding lump sum would be sensitized per transferee by using the number of trips and total days allowed in the policy, as well as the cost of the destination location.

Today’s tough real estate market has led to an increase in policy exception requests—primarily in the area of temporary housing. Most policies have been designed to offer specific benefits (i.e. home finding, temporary living, etc.), but now—given the state of the real estate market—more and more companies have begun grouping specific taxable benefits into one managed lump sum. A current best practice approach is to take the trio of home finding, temporary living and miscellaneous expense benefits and combine them into one managed lump sum amount—allowing the transferee to choose how they wish to spend this money, versus a “one-size-fits-all” approach. By having a managed lump sum program, exceptions decrease since transferees are empowered to spend their lump sum on the expenses which are a priority to them. And lastly, companies can share in the savings, as lump sums often cost less than providing relocation reimbursements individually.

If you are interested in incorporating managed lump sums into your relocation program or need more information, you can e-mail me at david.barlow@sirva.com .
For more information about managed lump sums, please review our white paper.



Companies continue to report that their employees are increasing reluctant to relocate. While the usual factors of family and spousal employment are even more magnified in tough real estate markets, one additional factor may be the home sale program the company offers. When the transferee is provided with a “pure” BVO/BVX home sale program, there is no guaranteed home buyout offer. These BVO/BVX programs have generally worked well in good real estate times; but when so many sellers are chasing even fewer qualified buyers (as is now the case) these relocation programs become less successful.  Even when transferees do all the right things—prepare the property for sale and list it at or near the most probable sale price—they still struggle to find buyers. This creates more pressure for corporations to extend temporary living benefits.

In some cases, it may make sense for companies to consider converting BVO/BVX home sale programs to AVO/AVX programs with required mandatory marketing times (e.g. 90 or 120 days). Here the best of a BVO/BVX program is maintained with ample time to find an outside buyer but also with the added assurance that if a buyer cannot be found then a guaranteed buy-out offer can be generated. This can be thought of as an “emergency parachute,” which can be used to complete the sale of the home and thus the corporate relocation. Also keep in mind, AVO/AVX corporate relocation programs ensure compliance with the recent revenue ruling (2005-74) which approves the use of AVO/AVX programs while not specifically approving BVO/BVX programs.

Have you considered this or have you already switched to an AVO/AVX relocation program? Are your employees more willing to relocate?





A recording of The Fundamentals of Relocation Webinar session is now available. This session will provide a brief history of the industry, and a broad overview of the relocation process, including a review of the terms and concepts most common to relocation policy development and implementation. The discussion will include household goods and temporary living options, the home sale process based on IRS Revenue Rulings, and industry trends such as lump-sum benefits and high-cost area assistance.

 View the Webinar


The continued weakness in many real estate markets has resulted in many companies spending more for relocation than anticipated. The cost of home loss-on-sale programs, extensions to temporary living benefits and the cost of inventory homes (in non-fixed fee programs) are three areas that are frequently cited by companies as being sources of concern.

None of us can control our real estate markets but we can manage our company’s relocation policy. We need to start with the realization that relocation (like other company benefits) comes with requirements of participation and the company (as the bill payer) has every right to set the rules. Transferees may want to use any agent or appraiser they wish but, like the medical plan they chose, they need to recognize that eligibility for relocation benefits requires that they chose from an approved list of service providers. Network real estate agents are critical in today’s market where they reduce the probability of inflated home values which lead to high listing prices and the increased probability of the home going into inventory.

The other critical control is the listing price. The relocation industry has long recommended that this be 105% of the average of the two MPSP’s (Most Probable Sale Price) and this has been widely adopted. Now more and more companies are going to 104% and 103%. Nothing is more critical in relocation cost control than seeing that a realistic listing price is set. No transferee should have the right to over list their property when it is their company (and not them) who will bear the unnecessary cost of such an action such as increased temporary living and the cost of a home that falls into inventory.




fundamentals of relocation webinar

Thursday, May 22, 2008
1:00 p.m. EST (10:00 a.m. PT)


Speaker: David Barlow, SCRP, GMS, Senior Vice President, Client Support Services, SIRVA
Duration: One hour


This "relocation 101" webinar is designed for new relocation professionals, procurement managers and supply chain managers who would like an overview of relocation fundamentals, and for anyone who wants to stay current with the latest policy trends and best practices.


This session will provide a brief history of the industry, and a broad overview of the relocation process, including a review of the terms and concepts most common to relocation policy development and implementation. The discussion will include household goods and temporary living options, the home sale process based on IRS Revenue Rulings, and industry trends such as lump-sum benefits and high-cost area assistance.


Register at
https://van.webex.com/van/j.php?ED=91994767&RG=1


Details for joining the session will be included in the registration confirmation e-mail



The continued difficult housing market creates cases where some homeowner employees find themselves in personal financial situations that are not conducive to accepting a relocation. Previously, “family considerations” were often the most common reason for an employee to delay or reject a corporate relocation. In today’s housing market, however, the problem is sometimes a home cannot be sold for an amount sufficient to cover the outstanding loan(s).  

While more than half of companies have a loss-on-sale program in their corporate relocation policies, these programs correctly treat (through a wide variety of formulae) the difference between the purchase price of the home and the selling price. Where employees have taken out second mortgages and/or lines of credit, however, they may in fact be “upside down”--namely owing more on their home than it is worth. In these situations, companies are wise in not making up “negative equity.” Negative equity is often the result of financial and purchasing decisions, which were made in times when real estate was appreciating. The negative equity, however, has no bearing on the actual loss-on-sale.

Today it is critical that the BMA/BPO process—which determines the MPSP (Most Probable Sales Price)--quickly identify cases where an employee may be “upside down.” Once an employee’s “home health” is known, all parties (employee, company and relocation service provider) can assay whether the relocation should proceed, or if the best course of action is to consider an alternative candidate. Making this judgment early before corporate relocation commitments and expenditures are made is a prudent course of action.




During the recent SIRVA University in Scottsdale, one of the sessions was a “standing room only” roundtable discussion on domestic policy issues. Client participants were asked what policy issues they were most concerned about. The overwhelming winner was Home Loss-on-Sale.  As it turned out, a full session at SIRVA U had been scheduled on this topic and it too was very popular with the attendees. Every indication is that Loss-on-Sale situations will continue to be with us for quite some time.

 

This Home Loss-on-Sale session outlined the seven decisions that companies must make in putting in place a Loss-on-Sale program (or revising one currently in place). In addition, the session reiterated that Loss-on-Sale has NOTHING to do with whatever equity the transferee may or may not have in the property. Loss-on-Sale is simply the difference between the net purchasing price and the net selling price of the property. Of course capital improvements in whole or in part may be added to the purchase price.

 
A copy of the Loss-on-Sale session from SIRVA U as well as an updated benchmark on what SIRVA clients are doing is available at: www.sirvauniversity.com




Thankfully long gone are the “olden days” when employees were told “your paycheck will be in Wichita, so be there next week.”  However, the state of residential real estate markets does appear to have raised the likelihood that employees are more reluctant to move and there are some very good reasons why they have every right to feel as they do.  

Consider the employee who took a transfer two years ago and followed all the company rules in the purchase of his/her home—in short they did not overpay for the property.  Now two years later the home is worth less than the employee paid for it and the company says we want to move you again.  Who should eat the loss on that home—the transferee or the company? The transferee has every right to look to the company to cover that loss on the sale of his/her property in whole or in part and, if they do not, no one should be surprised if the employee says, “no thanks, I’ll wait until the market recovers.”

Home Sale Loss Programs, while admittedly costly are clearly a legitimate and needed relocation benefit in today’s real estate market.